• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Tottering AGW Paradigm [W:31]

Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Threegoofs said:
Stoopid Libs!

We made up data and submitted it!

Of course, there’s literally no possible way one can do peer review and ensure data wasn’t falsified...because that’s not how peer review works.
Click to expand...

:lamo

". . . Within the academic fields utilizing what we’ve called “grievance studies,” however, these ideas are perfectly acceptable. We discovered this by submitting a paper on feminist educational theory to arguably the most respected feminist philosophy journal in the world, Hypatia.
We did this as a part of a year-long probe to find out how much certain political biases have taken root within a small but powerful sector of academia. Over the course of that year, we submitted 20 papers to journals that study topics of identity like gender, race, and sexuality, which we feared has been corrupted by a form of political activism that puts political grievances ahead of finding truth. . . .
Seven of our papers were accepted, many in top-ranking journals. These include an adaptation of Adolf Hitler’s "Mein Kampf," which was accepted by a social work journal. Another develops the concept of “fat bodybuilding” for a discipline called fat studies, and a third claims to address “rape culture” by monitoring dog-humping incidents at dog parks in Southeast Portland, Oregon.

But how was this possible? We succeeded not so much because we tricked the journals, but because our papers fit in with what they consider scholarship. . . ."
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

A tottering paradigm must be defended by irregular means.

[h=1]Fascinating Algorithm[/h]Posted on 17 Oct 18 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • Leave a comment
You may have heard about the recent crackdown by internet providers on purveyors of Fake News, which began by the banning of Alex Jones by Facebook and Twitter. First they came for the loony rightwing racist chemtrail conspiracy theorist But I wasn’t a loony rightwing racist chemtrail conspiracy theorist So what me worry? Then it
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

More irregular defense of the tottering paradigm.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]‘There Is No Middle Ground for Disagreements About Facts’… Except When It’s a Straw Man[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest logic by David Middleton From Real Clear Science… There Is No Middle Ground for Disagreements About Facts By Klemens Kappel Consider how one should respond to a simple case of disagreement. Frank sees a bird in the garden and believes it’s a finch. Standing beside him, Gita sees the same bird, but she’s confident…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm



Alarmism
[h=1]Have we reached peak alarmism on climate change?[/h]The question occurs after the muted reaction last week to the latest forecast from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In case you hadn’t heard we’re all doomed, yet the world mostly yawned. This is less complacency than creeping scientific and political realism. The U.N. panel says the apocalypse is nigh—literally. According to…
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Threegoofs said:
You mean like having some rando on the internet deny something like the massive ice losses over the last decades in Greenland because ‘someone would have noticed if it were true’ and who ‘proves’ it by simple addition?

Or some guy saying that 20MM people per year die because of biofuels despite repeatedly being pummeled by evidence that it’s untrue?

Yeah. People using science fraudulently is a problem.
Click to expand...

Science is not data. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Tim the plumber's argument is sound.It is not science. It doesn't have to be. Part of his argument is using math, which is sound. Simply denying it without counter-argument is an argument of the Stone. Blaming it on 'some rando on the internet' is a bulverism fallacy. The argument is sound, regardless of the source.
You have presented no evidence about deaths caused by biofuels either. Using acreage to raise corn for ethanol means that acreage is not being used to produce food. People do starve to death in the world today, even in the United States.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Tim the plumber said:
I would love to get to court with such a case.
Click to expand...

heh. I've seen even worse arguments presented by some lawyers! It usually turns into a comedy for the spectators and the jury. It's gotta be pretty embarrassing for a lawyer to have the spectators laughing at him!
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

[FONT=&quot]Climate News[/FONT]
[h=1]Apollo astronaut & scientist rejects IPCC climate report[/h][FONT=&quot]Apollo 17 moonwalker Dr. Harrison Schmitt rejects UN climate report: ‘The observations that we make as geologists…do not show any evidence that human beings are causing this’ NYT asks Geologist and Moonwalker Dr. Harrison Schmitt about UN IPCC report: The New York Times’ Nicholas St. Fleur: “…as one of the leading climate change deniers, when there was…
[/FONT]
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Into the Night said:
Science is not data. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Tim the plumber's argument is sound.It is not science. It doesn't have to be. Part of his argument is using math, which is sound. Simply denying it without counter-argument is an argument of the Stone. Blaming it on 'some rando on the internet' is a bulverism fallacy. The argument is sound, regardless of the source.
You have presented no evidence about deaths caused by biofuels either. Using acreage to raise corn for ethanol means that acreage is not being used to produce food. People do starve to death in the world today, even in the United States.
Click to expand...

879bb0edc41a3e7705017aaa396e00a0.gif
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

[h=2]Evil Nature caused Swiss Glaciers to melt faster in 1870 (See solar and volcanic effects)[/h]
A study on Swiss Glaciers shows that the fastest melting was in the 1860s and 1870s, long before the first coal fired power. (See that steep decline from 1850-70 in Part a in the graph below.) In Part b see the glaciers have been going back and forward in cycles that somehow have no correlation with human emissions.
Climate models can’t predict any of these turning points, don’t understand any of these cycles, but “doom is coming”.
Pay up your money to make glaciers grow again.
From the Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI)
Figure 8. (a) Cumulative glacier length changes for the four glaciers Bossons, Mer de Glace, Oberer (O-) Grindelwald and Unterer (U-) Grindelwald …); (b) glacier length change rate …(c )glacier length changes compared to surface air temperature anomalies for the summer … Panel (d) air temps and stratospheric aerosol optical depth (SAOD) (Click to enlarge and read the proper full caption).
​
In Part c (above) — glacier lengths correlate with temperatures. In part d the brown spikes are the Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Depth [SAOD] — meaning volcanic dust, black carbon, soot. These were bad years to head to the beach.
In terms of speed, note the lack of any spooky “unprecedented” retreat. The glaciers are shorter now, but the rate they are shortening is slower than in 1870.
[h=3]Unlike CO2, volcanoes and solar activity do correlate with glacier length[/h]See this longer graph — the red line estimate of summer temperature bottoms twice in 1600 and 1810 which also coincides with volcanic activity and solar minima.
It could get pretty expensive to control glacier length since we have to reduce the suns activity and probably set off some nukes in lieu of a handy volcano.
Click to enlarge. Figure 9. (a) black dots are glacier measurements. Grey columns are times of high volcanic aerosols. The red line is an estimate of European summer temperatures from tree rings. [BB means Biomass Burning if you click and read the proper caption.]
​
Long glaciers coincide with the solar minima and with volcanic forcing:http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/ev...70-see-solar-and-volcanic-effects/#more-61283Keep reading →




 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

[FONT=&quot]Humor[/FONT]
[h=1]The DIY Nonsense Detector Kit: How to differentiate science from psychobabble.[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest humor by David Middleton I ran across this interesting article on Real Clear Science today: Is That Science? The Wide World of Science Jamie Hale October 24, 2018 Science is persuasive, and it should be; science is the great reality detector. What appears to be a scientific claim often isn’t. Promoters of pseudoscience (claims…
[/FONT]
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Breaking: Guardian Climate Change Retreat? Will “Discontinue its Science and Environment blogging networks”[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t Dr. Willie Soon – According to Guardian Climate Change Columnist Dana Nuccitelli, the Guardian has decided to “discontinue” its science and environment blogging networks, a policy shift which seems to involve a significant cut to their climate change blogging (see the bottom of the quote for the Guardian announcement).…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/27/breaking-guardian-climate-change-retreat-will-discontinue-its-science-and-environment-blogging-networks/"]
scooter_nuccitelli_bigoil.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Breaking: Guardian Climate Change Retreat? Will “Discontinue its Science and Environment blogging networks”[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t Dr. Willie Soon – According to Guardian Climate Change Columnist Dana Nuccitelli, the Guardian has decided to “discontinue” its science and environment blogging networks, a policy shift which seems to involve a significant cut to their climate change blogging (see the bottom of the quote for the Guardian announcement).…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/27/breaking-guardian-climate-change-retreat-will-discontinue-its-science-and-environment-blogging-networks/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Very interesting to read that Guardian Climate is going to discontinue their blogging networks! Gee, I wonder why? /sarcasm intended! I also see that a "climate tax" is going to be enacted in Canada, and as usual people are asking WTH, and who is going to get my hard-earned money and for what? I have a thought on how to answer in one word....."guess!" :roll: Sheesh! :lamo
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Very interesting to read that Guardian Climate is going to discontinue their blogging networks! Gee, I wonder why? /sarcasm intended! I also see that a "climate tax" is going to be enacted in Canada, and as usual people are asking WTH, and who is going to get my hard-earned money and for what? I have a thought on how to answer in one word....."guess!" :roll: Sheesh! :lamo
Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Sooner or later reality comes a callin'. :shock:

Hope you're having a fine weekend.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

[h=1]“You Don’t Know Anything About It”[/h]Posted on 28 Oct 18 by ALEX CULL • Leave a comment
Unlike economic recession and wars, which pass, climate change does not, and there are deadlines if we want to avoid a point of no return. In fact, scientists calculate that Obama has four years in which to save the world. That was BBC Newsnight’s Science Editor Susan Watts reporting in January 2009. It was the … Continue reading →
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Jack Hays said:
Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Sooner or later reality comes a callin'. :shock:

Hope you're having a fine weekend.
Click to expand...

So far, so good! :thumbs: Now if it were 80 degrees outside instead of the cloudy 46 degrees the cruel thermometer insists upon showing me, it could be far more cheerful than it is! :lamo
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

polgara said:
So far, so good! :thumbs: Now if it were 80 degrees outside instead of the cloudy 46 degrees the cruel thermometer insists upon showing me, it could be far more cheerful than it is! :lamo
Click to expand...

Yep.

We need a tad bit more global warming in my neck of the woods too.
 
Wasn't that article published in like 2008?
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Moving The Goalposts: IPCC Secretly Redefines what ‘Climate’ means[/h][FONT=&quot]From the “watch the pea under the thimble” department, the IPCC appears to have secretly changed the definition of what constitutes ‘climate’ by mixing existing and non-existing data By Dr. David Whitehouse, The GWPF The definition of ‘climate’ adopted by the World Meteorological Organisation is the average of a particular weather parameter over 30 years. It was…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom